Norman Baker: what further plans he has to encourage the adoption of good environmental practice through the use of economic instruments.

John Healey: As it happens, I was with senior officials from the Amicus union, including the general secretary, only last Friday, but they did not raise that matter with me. If my hon. Friend would like to bring a delegation of officials from that union who have an interest in this, I will happily see him to discuss those issues.

Michael Jack: I am sure that the Economic Secretary acknowledges that carbon dioxide emissions from the transport sector have continued to increase in recent years. Why, therefore, has no United Kingdom bioethanol plant been built so far, to fulfil our European Union requirements of blending biofuels with non-biofuels? Why has the European Union apparently rejected Britain's proposals for emissions trading in the air sector?

Gordon Brown: Our aims are: that all countries agree to play their part in maintaining global growth and stability; that structural economic reform is taken forward to increase growth; that, with the reform of the international institutions, we ensure that the world's poorest can share in rising prosperity. Tomorrow, the Commission for Africa will publish its report and the G7 and G8 in Gleneagles will consider it.

Gordon Brown: My hon. Friend is right and I praise him for his work. Tuberculosis, HIV/AIDS and malaria are the diseases that are responsible for millions of people dying unnecessarily every year. The purpose of creating the global health fund was to ensure the capacity to treat them and the availability of immunisation and vaccinations. That is why it is especially appropriate today, when the scientists' report on malaria is published, that the British Government say that we are prepared not only to contribute towards vaccination for tuberculosis but to join other countries in purchasing and therefore financing an advance purchase mechanism for the new drug that may be a preventative vaccine for malaria. When similar work is done on HIV/AIDS, it will be necessary for the Governments of the richest countries to come together to support vaccination and the preventive work on that, too. That is the best contribution that we can make: not only helping in the short term with bed nets for malaria and vaccination for tuberculosis, but saying that, when those drugs are discovered, we will be behind the first advance purchase scheme in the world whereby the rich countries help the poor.

Gordon Brown: I understand the work that my hon. Friend has done in promoting both trade justice and debt relief over the past few years. We are all grateful for the work, which has brought significant results, with non-governmental organisations and others. Over the next few months, the pressure will grow on America and the European Union to enable an agreement to be possible in Hong Kong in December on world trade. Our proposal to end export subsidies is essential. It will also be necessary for us to offer to help countries in Africa, in particular, to have the capacity to enable them to trade. They will need investment in infrastructure, transport and communications so that they can trade fairly with the rest of the world. Part of the settlement at Hong Kong depends on our ability to provide additional overseas development aid to enable infrastructure to be built in those countries.

Borrowing

Paul Boateng: Like the hon. Gentleman's party, those organisations have been wrong before and they are wrong again. The hon. Gentleman was a distinguished Chairman of the Health Committee, which constantly urged investment in the health service during the period of the Conservative Government. He well knows that this Government have embarked on a programme that involves moderate borrowing, but it is justified by the need to bridge the years of under-investment in public services that occurred under the Conservative Government, which he drew attention to himself. The reality is that our borrowing is sustainable because we took the hard, tough decisions at the outset of the Labour Government, which the Conservative Government singularly failed to take throughout their 18 years of misrule.

Brian Jenkins: Congratulations are due to Chancellor for taking brave decisions to reduce our national debt. Much of the tax that our citizens pay can now be spent on services rather than on interest to fund that debt. We all recognise that, over the cycle, borrowing—

Dawn Primarolo: I am actually very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, who had a private conversation with me a week or two ago, precisely on the point of the phrasing of some of the letters that the Inland Revenue is sending out. I can tell him that as a result of the conversation with him I have asked that those letters be sent to me, I have asked that the phraseology be considered again, and I have made very strongly the points that he made to me then and has now made in the Chamber.

John Healey: We have indeed considered that; it was recommended to us by the Low Pay Commission. The economic evidence is mixed, so we have decided to make no change this year, but we will look at it carefully again in future.
	But when we bear in mind the 140,000 people who are destined to benefit from the national minimum wage rise in my hon. Friend's region, the real question is, will there be a minimum wage in the future, and the real concern should be the comments of the shadow Minister for deregulation, the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), who said:
	"there are several ways of dealing with the damage to jobs done by the minimum wage. It could be repealed, or it could be frozen"—[Official Report, 29 April 1999, vol. 330, col. 541.]

Mike Hall: I really do welcome the recent announcements and the increase in the national minimum wage. Through the new deal, a large number of people in my constituency have found work, but there is till one thing that I am concerned about, which is allowing people to become more prosperous when most people at the lower-wage end need more help from the Government. What can my hon. Friend say to me that would give reassurance to my constituents?

John Healey: My hon. Friend is right, of course, that the national minimum wage is just part of the set of measures that we need and have put in place to support the wages and take-home pay of poorer families. The national minimum wage should be seen alongside, and works with, tax credits. It is there as an essential guarantee of fair minimum pay for workers, but it cannot reflect family circumstances, so the tax credit, set alongside it, means that we can target help better on tackling poverty for those families. With the two put together, in October, families with one full-time worker and one child will be looking at take-home pay of £7 an hour.

John Healey: That is precisely the role of the tax credits.
	On the national minimum wage, I served on the Standing Committee, as the hon. Gentleman did, when we passed the historic National Minimum Wage Act 1998. I remember that he and his colleagues were arguing that it would cost 2 million jobs. They had argued that before 1997, but now there are 2 million more jobs in the British economy, under Labour, with the national minimum wage.
	I refer the hon. Gentleman to the Low Pay Commission. It has looked very carefully at concerns such as those that he has, and it has been able to prove that around 1 million workers each year benefit from the national minimum wage, that the economy has continued to generate new jobs since it was implemented, including in those sectors with a tradition of low pay. This policy is successful. I hope that the shadow Chancellor will give it his full backing.

Stephen Timms: My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the enthusiasm, especially, as he rightly says, of young people. When Nelson Mandela spoke in Trafalgar square the other week, I noticed how excited young people from my constituency and throughout the country were about that event and what it signified.
	We are absolutely determined to make progress through our presidency in the three areas that I identified: first, the IFF; secondly, 100 per cent. debt relief on the part of the multilateral organisations; and thirdly, a freer and fairer global trade system. I pay tribute to the work of all those who are campaigning, in particular the faith groups which have provided a large share of the individual energy that is going into the campaign. "Make Poverty History" is doing a terrific job, and it needs to be continued throughout this year to maintain pressure on all the G7 countries.

Peter Hain: Dream on. I do not intend to table a motion to that effect.
	On the question of Gypsy sites, the truth is that the ability to deal with the situation lapsed in 1984 when the Tory Government abolished the 1968 duty to provide sites. The Deputy Prime Minister is trying to ensure that there are proper controls on where such sites are put so that local residents are protected and the rights of Travellers are respected. The absence of the measures that the Conservatives repealed in 1984 has caused the current situation.
	There will be a Welsh affairs debate on 4 April—as soon as we get back from the Easter recess. I can give the hon. Gentleman that absolute assurance, as I indicated would be the case. He asked what might be discussed in that debate and mentioned national health service waiting times in Wales. There is no way in which the Secretary of State for Wales can order the National Assembly for Wales to do anything within its responsibilities, and the health service and waiting times are included in that. It is true that waiting times have not come down in Wales as quickly as in England, and the First Minister intends to make a statement about that matter in the coming weeks. However, it is also true that the real choice on health services in Wales is between a Labour Government, who are investing more and recruiting more nurses and doctors, and a Conservative Government, who would slash health service provision in Wales, which would lead to rocketing waiting times again.
	I did not hear the comments about capital gains tax to which the hon. Gentleman referred, but I think that there must have been some misinterpretation of what was said. I have announced four days of debate on the Budget, so there will be plenty of time for him and his colleagues to raise any matters that they like.
	On the terrorism legislation, a clear choice now faces the House of Commons and Parliament. Tomorrow is the anniversary of the Madrid bombing, which was an attack on the people of Spain by terrorists who could mount exactly the same kind of attack on London or anywhere else in Britain. That is why, on the clear advice of the security services and the police, we need new legislation. We have gone the extra mile to find consensus within the House on extra judicial protection, but the Government will not allow the fact that the Conservatives are playing politics with people's security to put us in a position of neglecting the safety and security of our citizens. The House of Lords is inviting the House of Commons to put its and the Conservative party's interests ahead of those of our constituents, but we will not do that. [Hon. Members: "Answer the question." That is answering the question directly. We will pursue the legislation because we believe that it is absolutely essential. We have made concessions to build consent in the House. The Bill will provide proper safety and security for our citizens and voters, but it is quite clear that the Conservatives are playing politics.

Peter Hain: It is an interesting early-day motion, and I am sure that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will want to look at it carefully. My hon. Friend has worked carefully and tirelessly in her own constituency to support the many small local businesses that are the backbone of the Cambridge economy and, indeed, the whole British economy. The buoyancy of small businesses and the growth of start-ups across Britain have developed on the back of a strong economy and are crucial to future job creation, the success of our economy and the prosperity that that brings.

Malcolm Bruce: Has the Leader of the House seen early-day motion 855, on the possibility of creating political prisoners?
	[That this House believes that if the Government persists in seeking legislation that gives to a Minister of the Crown the right to impose detention or control orders on UK residents without the decision being taken in a court on the basis of a trial of evidence then the UK will stand accused of creating political prisoners seriously damaging the reputation of this country's legal system as a beacon to the world.]
	Is not that an issue that should be taken seriously?
	Is the Leader of the House aware that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry responded to a question from me about reports of plans to privatise the Export Credits Guarantee Department by saying:
	"On the issue of the Export Credits Guarantee Department, I have not seen the reports that the hon. Gentleman refers to, but let me say that there are no plans to privatise that organisation".—[Official Report, 3 March 2005; Vol. 431, c. 1088.]
	In the Evening Standard on Tuesday, a DTI spokesman said that
	"we are considering whether we can work with private sector partners to deliver some of the Export Control Organisation's services."
	Is not that a clear indication that the Secretary of State either does not know or is not prepared to tell the House what her policy is? Nor did she make any comment on the proposal to extend open licences for defence equipment from two years to 10 years. May we have a debate in which the Secretary of State may explain to us exactly what she is doing on arms control and how that is consistent with the Government's claim that they want to tighten it up?

Eric Pickles: I support my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) in requesting an urgent debate on the new guidelines set by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, because it might be able to clear up one issue that is exercising my constituents? Why is Brentwood borough council, alone among councils throughout the country, being asked to provide an official Traveller and Gypsy site when it has but a handful of unauthorised caravans? Adjoining constituencies, represented by Labour Members, have hundreds of unauthorised sites and a history of migration by Travellers and Gypsies. Without an explanation, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister will not be able to demonstrate that it has acted objectively or, for that matter, sanely.

Peter Hain: I just do not agree with the point made by the hon. Gentleman. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister is minded to direct Brentwood to prepare a plan to allocate land to meet demand for Gypsy sites because the council is about to adopt a local plan that makes no such provision, despite the evidence of demand. The issue is whether, in the absence of the necessary controls because of the failures of the last Conservative Government, sites should be allowed to develop in a haphazard and uncontrolled way, or proper controls and plans should be put in place. Otherwise, Travellers will move around, creating difficulty and nuisance for local residents. The issue is whether we have proper sites that are properly regulated, controlled and located in order to protect local residents' interests. That is what the Deputy Prime Minister wants to do in Brentwood.

Kevin McNamara: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to early-day motion 298, which has been signed by more than 130 Members and calls for the abolition of the means test for the disabled facilities grant?
	[That this House is extremely concerned about the unfair nature of the Disabled Facilities Grant means test, particularly for families with disabled children; notes that many families who need to make vital adaptations to their home are often forced into massive debt by having to pay for the full cost of adaptations themselves or are unable to carry out the work, leaving their home inaccessible for their child; believes this situation is unacceptable; welcomes the ODPM's current review of the Disabled Families Grant and urges the Government to follow the recent decision to abolish the means test in Northern Ireland; and further believes that such a move would greatly improve the quality of life for many disabled children and their families.]
	Is my right hon. Friend aware that because of the unfair nature of that means test many hard-working families with disabled children who want to make vital adaptations to their homes are unable to do so without getting into massive debt? Others have to live in homes unsuited to their children's needs. As we have published a paper on improving the life chances of disabled people, will my right hon. Friend try to ensure that the House has an opportunity to debate the issue? Perhaps we may look forward to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor making provisions to address that issue in his Budget.
	Finally, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that many of us wish to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister on the course of action that he has taken in seeking to settle the problem of sites for Travellers and Gypsies? Is he further aware that we deplore—

Peter Hain: That is spot-on. We will sit as late, and for as long as it takes, to get the legislation through. We will not accept the Conservatives here and in the House of Lords trying to dictate to the Government. Were they in power, they would be taking similar action to deal with the consequences of the Law Lords' ruling last December that the existing powers were not lawful. We have to put something in their place. My hon. Friend says that his legitimate concerns have been met by the concessions that we have made to put judges and the judicial process in pole position. All we have now is an exercise based around a sunset clause—a specious reason to oppose the principles behind the Bill. That is what the Conservatives are doing.

Gregory Campbell: During last week's debate on renewal of the BBC charter, I raised the issue of substantially higher rates of licence fee evasion in certain parts of Northern Ireland. I have tabled early-day motion 810 on the matter:
	[That this House notes that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport has indicated in several replies to Parliamentary Questions from the honourable Member for East Londonderry that the information regarding a regional geographic breakdown of those people not in possession of a valid television licence fee is not available; further notes that the limited information which is available indicates that in certain undefined parts of the United Kingdom there is a considerably higher rate of evasion; and calls for a more open strategy to be deployed in order that people across the United Kingdom will know where the highest evasion rates are and will be able to see that the Department is acting accordingly to ensure licence fee payments are made and the law upheld.]
	When can we expect to have a debate on transparency regarding the identification of areas in which evasion is rife, so that we can establish that the Department has not attempted a cover-up and ensure that the law is upheld?

Peter Hain: May I assure my hon. Friend that that is draft guidance for consultation, and I am sure that those responsible will take into account the strong feelings that she and others have expressed. It is important that we trust NICE to make an informed and fully considered recommendation on those drugs, which will provide protection for everybody concerned.

John Baron: Will the Leader of the House please make it clear to the Deputy Prime Minister, on behalf of many Members, that the temporary stop notices brought in by the Government to deal with Travellers who break the law are utterly useless and a shambles? All they do is postpone the problem for 28 days. Thereafter our normal ineffective planning laws kick in. Councils need much stronger powers, as outlined in my Greenbelt Protection Bill, to evict those who break the law and to put right any damage. Otherwise, residents who live close to illegal traveller encampments, such as Hovefields, Crays Hill and Sadlers Farm in my constituency, and in many other constituencies where this is happening, will continue to be discriminated against while uneven and unfair handling of the situation is allowed to continue.

Claire Curtis-Thomas: Will my right hon. Friend convey my thanks to the Deputy Prime Minister for the work that his Department has done in relation to "competent persons"? We need to tackle cowboy electricians, the vast majority of whom work illegally in people's homes, in some cases causing death. The competent persons scheme will do that—but the measures taken thus far will not address the bulk of the problem that still exists. I would welcome an opportunity to debate the competent persons scheme on the Floor of the House, and further steps that we can take to ensure that people are protected from cowboys operating in their communities.

Peter Hain: The House is grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the matter and for acknowledging that the Deputy Prime Minister is trying to deal with it. I hope she will consider applying for a debate in the usual way, where the matter can be further explored.

Peter Hain: We take the Electoral Commission report very seriously, and Ministers are currently considering the matter. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would have wanted to remind the House that postal voting is a democratic right for those with disabilities, those who are not at home on voting day, senior citizens who find it difficult to get to the polling station and others who want to vote at ease from the privacy of their own homes, rather than having to go down to the polling station.

Peter Hain: The hon. Gentleman has made his point reasonably, so he will not get a rant in return. The problem is that the existing legislation, which the Law Lords have deemed unlawful, expires on Monday. What should we put in its place? The security services and the police have told us that they believe that the legislation that has been ruled unlawful acted as a powerful deterrent. They have told the Government, the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary and me, in my capacity as Leader of the House of Commons, that that legislation effectively put up a notice to would-be suicide terrorists that Britain is not a soft touch. We cannot continue to use that legislation so we must replace it, and that is what we are seeking to do. All Conservatives, wherever they are in Parliament, should respect the safety and security of our citizens and support the Government, which we would have done in opposition, and they have shown rank hypocrisy in failing to do so.

Peter Hain: I beg to move,
	That for a period of suspension of one year commencing on 1 April 2005 the Resolution of the House of 18 December 2001 relating to Members who have chosen not to take their seats and thus do not qualify to participate in proceedings in Parliament shall not have effect in so far as it provides for their claiming support for their costs under the provisions of the Resolutions of this House relating to Members' Allowances, Insurance etc., and the allowances relating to travel within the United Kingdom for Members, their families and staff.
	The motion stands in my name and that of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. It relates to the allowances paid to Members of this House who choose not to take up their seats and provides that payment of these should be suspended for 12 months. The Government propose this change in recognition of the concern felt on both sides of the House about the involvement of the Provisional IRA in the Northern bank robbery that took place just before Christmas.
	I will not reiterate the points made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he reported to the House the conclusion reached by the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland that the Provisional IRA had been behind the Northern bank robbery. Nor will I list the other crimes that the Independent Monitoring Commission concluded had been the work of that same organisation. The House is well aware of the issues. It is clear that this organisation continues to engage in serious criminality and that this criminality has grave implications for our attempts to restore sufficient trust to enable a power-sharing Government to be restored in Northern Ireland.

Peter Hain: The House has just renewed the measure, but the Government are in discussion with the Republic of Ireland Government and we will continue to monitor the position.
	The balance involved is difficult to strike and it gives me no pleasure to bring forward the motion because I believe that every Member elected to this House should take his or her seat in the Chamber. Not to do so is a denial of the representation that their constituents have a right to expect, whether those constituents voted for the elected Member or not—indeed, whether they voted at all. That is important. Those in the constituencies of the four affected Members, even those who did not vote Sinn Fein, have a right to normal parliamentary representation. That is why are taking away the £430,000-odd but leaving in place those Members' right to help their constituents through the facilities of the House.
	Although we all acknowledge the political position of Irish republicanism, the Government believe that Sinn Fein Members should take their seats and participate fully in the democratic process, partly because we want them to be committed to exclusively democratic means and partly because their constituents have a simple right to that representation.
	When the House voted in 2001 to grant allowances to Members who chose not to take their seats, it did that in recognition of the importance of those Members' fulfilling their duty to constituents. It is important and fair to say that the House was also mindful of the progress along the path to democracy made by Sinn Fein at that time. We all want continuously to encourage that progress and the motion is designed to do that.
	It is the view of the British and Irish Governments and of international opinion that the progress has faltered and slipped backwards because of the activities of the Provisional IRA. That is what has changed since the House made its decision in 2001. However, neither the duty of Sinn Fein Members to their constituents nor those constituents' rights have changed, which is why I believe that the motion achieves the right balance.

Oliver Heald: I beg to move amendment (a), in line 1, leave out from 'That' to '1st' and insert 'as from'.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this we will discuss amendment (b), in line 4, leave out from 'effect' to end.

Oliver Heald: I know from past debates with the hon. Gentleman that he reads The Guardian. He should read its front page today.
	In the light of all that, we welcome the Government's decision to take action against Sinn Fein Members. We opposed the original decision to grant these concessions in December 2001, and we argued for its reversal following the suspension of the Assembly and Executive in October 2002.
	In our view, however, the motion does not go far enough. We do not believe that the suspension should be time limited for only 12 months. What is the justification for that? We take the view that Sinn Fein Members should lose access to all, not just some, of the facilities at Westminster that the Government granted to them in December 2001. Amendment (a) would remove the sunset clause and make the removal of facilities and allowances permanent; amendment (b) includes reference to the office and other facilities as well as the allowances.
	In justifying the decision of December 2001, the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), then the Leader of the House, was adamant that the concessions were justified by progress made in the peace process. Today we can see that, because of Sinn Fein-IRA, there has been no devolution for two and a half years and there has been a succession of breaches of the agreement and the cease fire. On the Government's own logic, we should be reversing the changes that were brought about in December 2001.

John Gummer: Is not one of the main problems the fact that the Government have not named the organisation that we are talking about? Is not the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) right that it would be much better if we said that are making these changes in response to the actions of Sinn Fein-IRA? I believe that it would be much easier if we did that. Because we are not saying that, we have to deal with a very difficult lacuna. What do we do about people who do not want to come to the House for reasons that might, at some future time, be acceptable? I cannot think of an occasion at the moment, but some people have taken that view in the past. Should we not have pressed for the motion to be viewed as a specific response to what Sinn Fein-IRA has done?

Lembit �pik: If I understand the hon. Gentleman correctly, it is a matter of principle for him that those who are either unable or choose not to take their seats in the House should not have office access. I presume that if it really is a matter of principle for him, those who are suspended from the House should also be denied access to their offices. [Hon. Members: They are] Is my understanding of his position correct?

Seamus Mallon: I want to make my position on this matter as clear as I did at the last Northern Ireland questionsI am not in favour of the motion. I have never been in favour of it for a number of reasons that I hope to explain. I am not going to vote in favour of it today. I come from a long tradition in relation to where I live and also to my family, which recognised the refusal to take or affirm an oath of allegiance as part of the nationalist or republican tradition. That is something that goes way back into Irish history and it runs very deeply in people that come from that tradition.
	I immediately recognise two sets of principles, which have already been enunciated. It is an absolutely legitimate principle to say that anyone in this House or any democratic forum should have equality and that there should be only one set of rules by which people abide. I recognise that principle and I respect it as absolutely legitimate.
	I am also aware of the other principle, as I have already mentioned. There is a curious pristine legitimacy about it. However, I see no pristine legitimacy in justifying a set of actions on the basis of principle, while saying, Those are my principles; I am not breaking them; but, by the way, can I have the money on the side? In many ways, that is what is happening here. The nationalist-republican tradition is the principle on which some Members justify not attending Parliament, yet that principle does not seem to get in the way of the allowances or advantagesfinancial and otherwisethat stem from Parliament.
	It is difficult to have respect for a principled positionthe shadow Leader of the House touched on itwhen that principled position, in terms of its own definition, contaminates itself by having a hand out sideways for the money, while the principle is maintained in public. That is one of the reasons why I look upon the matter with a jaundiced eye.
	There will be a lot of righteous indignation about the motion before the House. I recognise and respect that, but there will probably be little recognition of what lies at the heart of the issuea disrespect for the institutions of Parliament shown by those who will take the money, but not come to put their case on the Floor of the House. People may have different political persuasions, but they must not disrespect our political institutions. In the Northern Ireland arrangement, that disrespect means that there can be little respect between political adversaries.
	I want to make several minor points. We all know the value of publicity in the run-up to a general election. How much publicity could the Labour, Conservative, Democratic Unionist, Ulster Unionist or Social Democratic and Labour parties buy for 400,000? Could they buy as much as has been secured today, in this debate, by the party at which the motion is aimed? In my view, they most certainly could not. That party will milk today's debate, making it another grievance to add the list. It seems to thrive on the grievance culture, in which this motion will become another element. Every statement and interview by that party is permeated by a sense of victimhood, and many people will consider the unprincipled decision in this matter to have been taken by this House. For that reason, I regard the motion with a jaundiced eye.
	Secondly, I want to look beyond today's debate. I do not want to talk about bank raids or recent murders or developments in Northern Ireland. The motion is part of the process by which negotiations are progressed through deals on the side. I do not accept that a shaft of light struck the Government, individually or collectivelybut including the Leader of the House and the Secretary of State for Northern Irelandand that as a result they decided to propose this motion. That decision was made in negotiations with a political party, as a side deal to the other negotiations in hand at the time.
	When was the issue discussed with the Ulster Unionist, Democratic Unionist or Social Democratic and Labour parties? It was never discussed, as it belongs in the category of side deals. It is part of the goodies and sweeteners used to get and keep people on board. What effect does such a deal have on the real negotiations about very serious issues, or on the future? What will be its effect on those parties that negotiate in good faith? The harsh reality is that negotiations on Northern Ireland over the past seven years could provide a template, usable by any country in the world, for resolving conflicts by removing all the middle ground. Until the fault line in the negotiating process is recognised, the difficulties will continue and increase.
	I was interested to hear various hon. Members say that the political process and mandate required that the party at which the motion is aimed has some presence at Westminster. I am one of those who have fought elections in which men with guns have stood at the polling station door, telling people that they could not, and should not, vote. I have had the same guns thrust in my face and put to my head, and been told that it was disloyal of me to seek a mandate in an election, regardless of whether that election was for Westminster or the Northern Ireland Assembly. Some people may consider such a mandate sacrosanct; my approach is different.
	As I said, two sets of principles are at work. One is demeaned by the very people who pretend and maintain that they uphold it, but do today's debate and the crucible that is the recent past show that there is a need to re-examine the process of negotiation? There is a huge difference between the process of negotiation and its subject. The Good Friday agreement is the basis for the future, but the process of negotiation has served only to diminish its chances of success.
	I have one final question, which I cannot answer. Like many other hon. Members, I will not be in the House when it is answered. The motion will be reconsidered in a year: what will happen then, if the money is still required by those who claim to uphold the principle on which the motion is based? What line will the Government of the day take? What will be the criteria governing the reintroduction of the provisions? Will they remain unchanged? Will they be reintroduced in a different form? Will Parliament say that a principle is involved and that it will stick to it?
	In many ways, the debate will retain an element of schizophrenia. Beyond a certain point, the Government's position lacks logic. The same is true of my position, or of the position espoused by many of the people involved, and that is because the motion is based on an inherent illogicality. The feelings aroused are deep and legitimate

Ian Paisley: Indeed. If the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh had stayed in the House long enough, he might even have been a right hon. Member.
	However, I disagree with the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh's interpretation of history. As I understand Irish history, the nationalists were keen to come to the House in the old days. They were keen to take the Oath and to declare which side of the House they supported. It seems to me that it is the republican element that brought in boycotting and the refusal to take the Oath. But that is a question for another day.
	I am greatly concerned about what will happen when we pass the motion. We are to wait a whole year, but in a year's time, nothing will change and eventually the door will open again to IRA-Sinn Fein.
	I have worked all my pastoral life in the Short Strand area. I have been there for about 57 years and I know the area better than anybody in the House. I know the people of the area. Because of the terrible murder that took place, those people were prepared to come out into the open. I salute their heroism and determination and I hope that they achieve what they are after. If the IRA had shot the people who were named after that murder had taken place, would the House still be doing what it is doing today? Of course it would. The same arguments that we have heard today would be putthat we do not want to make martyrs of them and so on and so forth.
	I do not know when all of this will end. I have before me a paper that was given to the Prime Minister and the chief of police. It gives information about what were known as the killing fields of Northern Irelandsouth Armaghand describes many incidents that took place. It is a plea from people whose friends were murdered that the police will do something about it.
	The document lists the activities of Thomas Slab Murphy who is well-known to people in Northern Ireland. It names Michael Carragher, who was an infamous IRA sniper, James McArdle, a leading IRA member, and Eddie Magill of Pointzpass and lists the accusations made against them. It also mentions John Gerard Hughes and his influence in the smuggling racket. It describes the system operated by Collins and Collins the estate agents. People in the area believe that it set up false companies to obtain VAT numbers for the criminal use of others.
	Those matters have been placed in the hands of the Prime Minister and the police, yet no real action has been taken. Are those people beyond the bounds or does the writ of the law of the House run in that area? The law-abiding citizens of Northern Ireland look at what goes on in the House. Over the past week, they have heard our debates and have heard the Government emphasise that there could be more terrorist activity, yet terrorist activity is going on and nothing is done about it. That is why the people of Northern Ireland feel that we must tell the Government that it is not peace at any price; it must be peace on the basis of democracy, fairness and justice. After all, those are the words coming from Short Strand: Give us justice. We do not want indicative anger, and we refuse to take the IRA's guns and say, 'Use them to shoot people,' because who knows who is guilty until the right word is passed?
	One thing is certain: those who have already been dealt with by the IRA in order to get certain information out of them suffered in their bodies, and they cannot be produced so as to see what sufferings they endured, so do not think that it was easy for the IRA to get the information it has put out; it came the same way as violence comes, and the persons involved suffered.
	This is the situation we face. What worries me is not only the money taken from the Northern bank, but the fact that there have been other terrible robberies, involving 10 million worth of tobacco and cigarettes. The Independent Monitoring Commission has noted that the IRA is responsible for those robberies. So, another 10 million is involved, as well as all the other pounds it lifts in levies throughout the country. The knock at the door comes and so much is levied. The IRA knows what people earn and where they work, and that is it.
	When I was a Member of the European Parliament, I talked to a constituent who told me that at one election she had three visits from five men, who came to remind her that there was an election on and that she must vote. That woman would not have been voting for them anyway, but she told me, I saw them coming, I stood at the door with them, they gave me the message and they left. Ten days afterwards they were back again, as they were the day before the election.
	Are we going to allow the people of Northern Ireland to suffer in that way? The House must take a strong stand. We have heard some strong words from the Government and from Labour Members, who say that we must deal with terrorism. They need to deal with terrorism now, in the backyard of our country. They must deal with it thoroughly and with all the strength they can muster.
	I make a plea to the House, no matter how we vote on this weak motion, which should have mentioned the IRA. We are not putting these people out because they did not take their seats. Nobody believes that. They are being put out because of the happenings, their cruelty and their terrorism. Why not tell the people the truth?
	I do not often agree with the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), but even he admitted that the point I was making is valid. It is valid. Why do we not mention the sins of these people, for which they are to be punished, instead of clothing the issue with this motion? I regret that we are not going to have the two good amendments, to which some of us, along with others, put their name.
	Also, we need to remind ourselves that these same people are Members of the Legislative Assembly; they will still get their money. These same people are councillors; they will still get their money. These same people have an MEP; she will get her full money from this House and the privilege given with it.
	The Government are not dealing radically with this issue. Let us face up to all the elected representatives who are in this movement and deal with them. Only in that way will they see sense and see that the game is up: no longer will violence or murder and mayhem pay. We are going to take the democratic road to peace for the future for all the people of Ulster.

Kevin McNamara: No, I do not accept that at all. I believe that people can be elected to this place who can accept the state as it exists, but who seek to change that state fundamentally in respect of how the Head of State is chosen. They can do that by taking another form of oath, which does not mean that they are being asked to betray their principles.
	I do not believe for one moment that if we had changed the Oath that would necessarily have brought people from Sinn Fein here, but we should not insist on things and say that there are not obstacles to their being here that we can remove.
	My next point is that the House should bear it in mind that there has been considerable movement on the part of Sinn Fein and its leadership, despite all the thingsI admitwe have seen and know about. They are trying to lead their movement towards a peaceful acceptance. Indeed, we are told by the Government and the Democratic Unionist party that, but for want of a photograph, we would have had that in December. So, there has been movement, although hon. Members, the Government and the Taoiseach are right to point out that, probably at the same time, they were planning the robbery of the Northern bank. However, that robbery would not have affected the basic support of Sinn Fein one iota in the north of Ireland, although it might well have had an effect in the Republic. As the hon. Member for North Antrim pointed out, 10 million has been robbed from bank and post offices and that has not affected Sinn Fein's position.
	Sinn Fein's position has been affected by the savage murder of Robert McCartney. That has been the real blow to Sinn Fein and IRA because it has undermined their position in their community. The event has done far more damage than any that we can do by passing the motion. The effect of the incident has been shown by their reaction to it, which was slow at first, but quickly became greater as they realised the affront that had happened in their community. The fact that they have now deplored the murder, urged people to come forward and placed names before the police ombudsman shows the pressure that the community has put on the leadership of IRA. That, more than anything, will hasten division in the republican movement. People at the head of Sinn Fein will eventually have to make a real and positive decision about that.
	Although it was reported little over here, the speech made by Gerry Kelly at the Ard Fheis in Dublin was interesting. He spoke about a need for acceptance of the development of police boards and the need for the disappearance of the IRA as an organisation. He used words and phrases that had not been heard before. It was also interesting that Gerry Adams accepted clearly and without qualification the legitimacy of the Government of the Republic because that represented a breakdown of the old mythology.

David Trimble: It is not necessary for the hon. Gentleman to hang his hat on paragraph 13. If one looks at speeches made by the Prime Minister in 1998 one can see that his language is clearly broad enough to include criminality. Individuals who have recently made much of those comments should bear in mind the fact that he said at the time that the criteria and their application would necessarily become more stringent over time. In a transition, it is perfectly natural to expect criteria to be applied more stringently, and six or seven years into that period there is no basis whatever for failing to do so. In 2001, I considered that the motion was a mistake that would undermine the process: it would send republicans the signal that they could get away with it. Likewise, the activities of previous Secretaries of State, with their rather unpleasant references to internal housekeeping when there was brutality of a not dissimilar nature to the McCartney murder, undermined the process.
	The Government's failure to insist rigorously on the basic principles of the agreement is not helping at all, and is likely to reinforce among republicans the view that if they hunker down and wait, after a short and not even decent interval the Government, the Irish Government and others will return to negotiations with them. It will just be a matter of rehashing the usual steps. I suspect that even today, officials are trying to cobble together yet another deal on policing to entice republicans back to the process. To do so, against the background of the republican statements this week, is simply nauseating.
	Having made clear my view of the motion, I shall go a little further. Reference has been made to the individuals who were returned to represent certain constituencies and their activities. I am not sure of the exact composition of the IRA army council todaychanges are made to it from time to time for the convenience of the organisationbut three Members who were returned to serve in the House are or have in the recent past been members of that body. There is no serious doubt about that. The more significant question is what they have been doing, both now and in the recent past.
	I have referred to the report by the Independent Monitoring Commission. The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) read out the text, which clearly says that senior members of Sinn Fein who were also senior members of the IRAthere are very few senior Sinn Fein members who are not senior members of the IRAapproved the robberies that were taking place. There is no doubt that some of the individuals involved in the execution of the robbery were very close indeed to the leadership of the republican movement. We do not know, but it is probable that the leadership knew exactly what was happening and thought that they could and would get away with it.
	The hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) referred to the Standards and Privileges Committee, and actions that have been taken from time to time to suspend Members, reprimand them and so on. Occasionally, the House has gone further and expelled Members. That has been the case in comparatively recent times. A Member was expelled for telling a lie in Committee. He attributed dishonest motives to other Members when he himself was acting dishonestly. Another Member was expelled when he was convicted of the crime of forgery. He would have been disqualified because of the length of his prison sentence, but the House was not content to wait for that provision to take effect and expelled him. If the persons returned to serve in the House have not taken their seats and if they have been accessories to this crime, as the IMC report hinted, surely we should go further and follow those precedents. It would be proper to expel those persons from the House.
	That is the reasoning behind my amendment, and I am glad that it has received the support of other hon. Members. It is entirely reasonable in present circumstances to see what further information can be obtained about the activities of Members, for that information to be presented to the House and for the House to take the appropriate action.
	Earlier, I said that at the time of the agreement republicans were locked into an arrangement that they did not like. I said that we could move them under pressure, and we did so to a significant extent. As a result, the situation in Northern Ireland is now quite different, so I make no apology for the decisions that we made in 1998, 1999 and 2000. It has become clear, however, that persons who were prepared to engage in politics are prepared to do so only up to a certain point. They are not willing to complete the transition and do what the Prime Minister has called for since October 2002. Their recent behaviour and statements do not give any indication that they are likely to change at all in future. We must therefore reassess the matter more fundamentally, and those who are now buying into the process must be careful not to become too eager.

John McDonnell: I was one of those miscreants, Mr. Deputy Speaker, who informed your Office during the debate that I would like to speak. I apologise for that, and will speak as briefly as I can. I did so because I was loth to speak in the debate until I had heard what other hon. Members had said. I know that it is unusual to listen to other hon. Members[Interruption]indeed, it is unprecedented, but I thought that that would be best.
	I want to raise three issues. First, the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) raised a matter of principle and I respect him for that. It was the straightforward view that if someone is elected to this House and expects to receive the full privileges and income, they should be a full participant. That is a principled position, but there is a contrary argument that some people stand for election on a specific platform with a specific manifesto and tell their electorate that they will stand for election but not take office in the Chamber or swear the oath. That mandate, whether we like it or not, has been given to a number of Sinn Fein Members by a majority vote, and we must respect the mandate of that electorate. That overrides the issue of whether they are full Members. We must respect the view of the people who elected them by a majority.
	I should tell my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) that a side issue is taxpayers' money. I accept that, but those who voted for Sinn Fein also pay taxes and may want some of it spent on their Members of Parliament[Interruption.] I do not want to start a separate discussion on income tax and collection in Northern Ireland. A valid issue of principle has been raised, but there is a valid argument to the contrary.
	The second, more important issue is whether sanctions should be applied when events affect the standing of individual Members. We heard from the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) and my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) about the normal processes by which we apply sanctions against Members. I refer now to the bank robbery, and I shall refer later to the tragedy of Robert McCartney. Under the rule of law, the normal process is that innocence is presumed until someone is found guilty beyond all doubt. In the bank robbery case, if individuals had been brought to trial, found guilty and had a direct involvement with Members of this House, or if Members had been involved, the normal sanctions would apply and the appropriate Committees of the House would have applied those sanctions. That has not happened.
	Too many allegations in the pastfor example, spy rings in Stormont and so onwere founded on intelligence which did not prove satisfactory in ensuring a prosecution. There is an argument, whether hon. Members like it or not

Patrick Cormack: This is essentially a House of Commons matter, and I very much hope that it will be decided by a truly free vote. The hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey), in her brave speech, asserted that it would be a free vote. The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik) said the same and I know that it will be a free vote for the official Opposition. I would like confirmation from the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, when he winds up, that it will be a free vote on the Government side[Interruption.] Well, I treat every vote as a free vote, but that is not the point that I am making. I hope that every Member is able to vote as a Member of this House, because we are voting about Members of this House.
	I am sorry that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is not in his place. In a short debate such as this, at least one of the Cabinet Ministers taking part should be present throughout. It is an insult to the House that neither of them is in his place at the moment.
	My position on this issue is simple. We are considering four Members who have been elected to this Housenobody disputes thatwhose conduct has been wholly unbecoming to this House. I voted against the resolution in December 2001, but I saw the Government's logic in proposing it. At that stage, there were high hopes for the peace processsome would say misplacedon the Government's part. There were high hopes that the Sinn Fein Members would play a constructive part in that peace process, but those hopes have been thoroughly confounded since. Far from playing a constructive part, those four Members have been proved time and again to have not only a tainted past, but a tainted present. They have been involved with acts of criminality and acts of terrorism. Although we talk at present of the difference between the suicide terrorist and the IRA terroristand there is a differencewe should not forget that those who died in Omagh are just as dead as those who died in the twin towers. Those Members have been complicit in acts of terrorism. They are not worthy to sit in this House.
	I wished to be constructive in my opposition to the motion, so I tabled an amendment. It was not selected, and I make no complaint about that, but it would have limited the withdrawal of facilities, with a similar sunset clause to the one in the motion. I prefer the amendment that has been selected and I shall give it my support.
	I am glad that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is now in his place. I have great respect for him and nobody could even begin to deny his good faith. However, it is bizarre that in a little over an hour's time we will once again debate the Prevention of Terrorism Bill and, as I pointed out to my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) in an intervention earlier, the Government will urge us to allow them to introduce control orders that will be imposed on many people who are probably not terrorists. I do not dispute the Government's good faith or their overriding and paramount concern for public safety, but if they are prepared to do that, is it not paradoxical that, an hour before, they will vote against an amendment that would exclude people who are almost certainly terrorists and Members of this House? That is ludicrous and it makes the Government's stand against terrorism hollow.
	I regret that. I have many criticisms, which I have voiced in the Chamber, of the manner in which the Government have handled the Prevention of Terrorism Bill, but at no stage have I impugned their good faith in seeking to do what they believe to be right. None the less, I say to the Government that if that is their response to terrorism in general, here they have terrorism in particularfour Members, three of whom are or have been members of the IRA council, who have been involved in acts of terrorism and who have not washed their hands and divorced themselves from those who continue to be involved in acts of terrorism. That is the point. Here we have people who as recently as yesterday announced their willingness to take the law into their own hands, in the form of that extraordinary statement from the IRAof which Mr. Gerry Adams is still a member and to which Sinn Fein remains indissolubly linkedthat gun law can prevail in the United Kingdom. If nothing else can persuade the Government of the logic of my argument, yesterday's statement should surely do so.
	I hope, first, that the Secretary of State will assure us that this is to be a truly free vote for every Member of the House of Commons; and, secondly, that Members of the House of Commons will decide whether they truly want to allow access to all our privileges and facilities to people who refuse properly and adequately to represent their constituents in this place, by making speeches, asking questions and so on.

David Lidington: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is being incredibly naive in believing in this distinction between Sinn Fein and the IRA. Neither the British Government, nor the Irish Government, nor the police on either side of the border are prepared to share that belief with him.
	I shall briefly spell out the effect of our amendments. Amendment (a) would make the 12-month suspension of allowances indefinite, while amendment (b) would extend the scope of the motion to cover other parliamentary privileges. Taken together, they would restore the position to that established by Speaker Boothroyd's ruling after the 1997 general election.
	Let me come first to the parliamentary argument, which was dealt with particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) and the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey). There should not be two classes of Member. We are sent here to represent our constituentsthose who voted for us and those who did not alike. As the hon. Member for Vauxhall said, the allowances, offices and staff passes are there to enable us to do our job of representing those constituentsthey do not come to us as of rightand the same set of rules should apply to every Member of Parliament.
	The hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) acknowledged that Sinn Fein's policy of abstention goes beyond the Oath alone. As the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) observed, that policy amounts to a deliberate and calculated rejection of the existing constitutional and legal order in the United Kingdom.
	My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) commented that the Provisional IRA considers itself the legitimate Government of the whole island of Ireland. That is a theological and ideological belief that the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson) illustrated well when he reminded us that Mr. Mitchell McLoughlin recently denied that the abduction and subsequent murder of Mrs. McConville was a crime because, in Sinn Fein-IRA's view, it is for the IRA army council to decide what constitutes legality and illegality anywhere in the island of Ireland.
	The Government justified the change that they introduced in 2001 on the ground that it would help the political process. Despite the fact that it represented a break from the way in which the House of Commons had traditionally treated all Members alike, in the Government's judgment it was a necessary move to engage republicans more fully in the democratic process and to recognise the transition that the republican movement was making from terrorism to exclusively democratic politics. However, the motion is not an adequate or proportionate response to recent events.
	The Police Service of Northern Ireland, the Garda Siochana and the Independent Monitoring Commission all declare that Sinn Fein both knew and approved of not only the Northern bank robbery but a sequence of recent serious crimes. Those comments were made before the savage murder of Mr. Robert McCartney. As the hon. Members for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) and for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) pointed out, crime, violence and intimidation is still rife, especially in areas such as south Armagh and parts of Belfast, where paramilitary gangs prey on the people whom they claim to protect.
	The action that the Government should take is not what the motion proposes; it is to stop giving Sinn Fein an effective veto over any political progress in Northern Ireland. We cannot wait indefinitely for the republican movement to make the transition. It is time for the Government to move forward with the democratic nationalist and Unionist parties. That is a subject for exploration and debate on another occasion.
	The main argument against the Opposition amendments that Members on the Government side of the House, especially the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh, present is that accepting them would allow republicans to pose as martyrs. Given that the hon. Gentleman has made the argument, I respect it and I reflected on it before reaching a judgment on the motion and amendments. Nevertheless, I believe it to be mistaken. Of course republicans will pose as martyrs and victimsit is part of their stock in trade. However, if we tie our hands by refusing to take action for fear that they will pose as martyrs, we end by granting them virtual immunity, however grave their actions or failure to deliver on democratic promises. As the right hon. Member for Upper Bann said, the history of recent years suggests that republicans move only when they are put under pressureand then, I would add, only at the last practical moment.
	Today, despite many years since the agreement during which the Government have bent over backwards to help republicans make the transition to democracy, we remain in a position whereby the Provisional IRA retains its active military structures, with the capacity for terrorism, uses crime to raise money and intimidate nationalist communities and retains stocks of illegally held guns and explosives. The onus now should be on the republicans to end their involvement in crime, to stand down the IRA as an effective military force, to turn it into an old comrades association, and to decommission the weapons that they ought not to hold and which, given their repeated promises to be committed to exclusively democratic and peaceful politics, they have no reason to keep. It is just not enough to say, as the Government motion does, that we will suspend the allowances for 12 months, and then Parliament will consider the matter again and see whether the republicans' behaviour has improved.

Paul Murphy: I will reflect on what the hon. Gentleman has said.
	The last thing I wanted was for the debate to take place at all. It is seven years since the signing of the Good Friday agreement, and Northern Ireland Members will recall that only a few months ago we were again very close to an agreement. That would have meant a period between the agreement and the restoration of the Assembly and the Executive during which the IMC would have verified whether criminality had been carried on during those months by the Provisional IRA. But it was not to be.
	I agree with the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley), who said that in a sense this debate about support for Members who have chosen not to take their seats masks something very simple. The debate is, of course, about sanctions, about penalties and about effectively imposing a fine on Sinn Feinbut what it is really about is what has happened over the past few weeks in relation to the criminality associated with the Provisional IRA, and the way in which events described by Member after Member this afternoon have to all intents and purposes torpedoed the political process that we have seen in recent months.The hon. Gentleman spoke of the sins of those who had committed those acts. Indeed, this three-hour debate is, or at least should be, about those sins, and its title is inadequate to describe what we are dealing with today.
	The hon. Member for South Staffordshire, the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington), my hon. Friend the. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), the hon. Members for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) and for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik) and, of course, the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) all referred to recent eventsin particular the Northern bank robbery, which was mentioned just now by the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Dodds), and the murder of Robert McCartney. In the last couple of days there has also been the IRA's statement. All of those things have contributed to why we are having this debate.

Paul Murphy: I shall come to that shortly, but the IMC said that whatever we did here in the House of Commons, and whatever I had to do about allowances for the Northern Ireland Assembly, it would all be deeply inadequate to address the issue with which we are dealing today. There are differences between Members, but they all agree that we must address the criminality that lies behind the events of the past few weeks and that is poisoning the political process. We can take away the allowances of the Members whom we are discussingfine them, in other words. It has been said today that if we take half a million pounds from Sinn Fein it will not matter, but I think it will demonstrate the profound disagreement in the House of Commons with what has happened.
	If we extend that to other aspects such as access to the House of Commons, there is a disagreement among us about whether we should do that as well as that. The disagreement is not about a question of principlewhether there should be sanctionsbut about the balance that we need to strike. On the one hand we penalise the party, but on the other hand we do not want to penalise the people who voted for certain people in certain constituencies. There are genuine disagreements about that matter, but in both cases the argument is inadequate to address the issue of criminality, which has brought down the political processes and talks over the last number of weeks.

Brian Wilson: Does my right hon. Friend also acknowledge that the willingness to accept Sinn Fein according to the terms that it uses to present itself has undermined and undercut genuinely democratic political organisations in Northern Ireland? Sinn Feinor Sinn Fein-IRA, whatever it calls itselfhas been involved in serious criminality in the past. Should not the Government be more transparent about what they know, so as to protect and support the genuinely political parties in the north of Ireland?

Question accordingly negatived.
	Amendment proposed: (b), in line 4, leave out from effect to end.[Mr. Lidington.]
	Question put, That the amendment be made:
	The House divided: Ayes 171, Noes 357.

Paul Tyler: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you will recallI think you were in the Chair at the timethat I raised this matter with the Leader of the House. He promised to take urgent action to ensure that the Secretary of State for Defence was told of the concerns of hon. Members on both sides of the House about constituency matters of great importance to us and our constituents being announced in a written statement with no details when a briefing was given to the local media, but not to Members of Parliament. As the Leader of the House is in his place and as the House is sitting, may we have a statement from a Defence Minister?

Charles Clarke: As you indicated, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we are debating all the amendments together, and I intend very briefly to go through the Government's position on each of the issues that has been addressed.
	I turn first to Lords reasons 38A, 39A, 40A, etc. The effect of the Lords motion is that the Lords have insisted on their amendment to the schedule that provides for the Lord Chief Justice to make the rules and to require rules of court to be compatible with article 6 of the European convention on human rights and have proposed a different procedure for the making of first rules. We do not accept that that set of proposals is sensible. First, the Lord Chief Justice does not make rules of court. Secondly, the rules must be compatible with article 6 in any event. Thirdly, we have changed the procedure to allow affirmative resolutions to approve the rules. I therefore ask the House to insist on its disagreement to Lords amendments Nos. 38, 39 and 40, insist on its amendments Nos. 42A and 42B, agree to its amendment No. 42C, agree to Lords amendment No. 42D and disagree with Lords amendment No. 42E proposed in lieu.
	Secondly, I address Lords reason 1D, which refers to the Secretary of State making non-derogating orders and to the standard of proof. The effect of the Lords motion is that they have rejected our amendments in relation to the making and judicial supervision of non-derogating control orders and to standards of proof. They are insisting on their own amendments in relation to those matters. We had a very long debate on those issues last night. The will of the House was expressed very clearly indeed. I do not propose to accept the amendments proposed, since I believe that a reduction in the standard of proof would lead to the likelihood that certain dangerous individuals who otherwise would be brought under control through control orders would not be so controlled. That is the advice that I have had from the police and the security services. I therefore conclude that the Lords amendments are not an improvement.
	My amendments indicated very considerable movement by the Government to address the concerns expressed in both Houses. For that reason, I ask the House to insist on its amendments Nos. 1A and 1B to Lords amendment No. 1, insist on its disagreement to Lords amendments Nos. 8, 9, 12, 13, 15, 17, 22, 28 and 37, and insist on its amendments Nos. 37A to 37O, to disagree to Lords amendments 37Q to 37T proposed in lieu of Lords amendment No. 8, and propose the additional amendments listed in my name on the marshalled list.
	I believe that the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), in responding to this discussion, should answer a key question when considering these amendments. Will he confirm that his policy neglects the advice of the police and security services and would mean that control orders would not be placed on certain individuals whom the police and security services consider a threat?

Mark Oaten: Will the Home Secretary acknowledge that it would be difficult for Opposition parties to answer that question unless we can be shown the evidence on which the assumption is based? Will he make available the evidence that is being given to him by intelligence sources?

Charles Clarke: I shall not give way.
	The Government's motion states that the House insists on its disagreement with Lords amendments Nos. 27, 31 and 32 and proposes amendments in lieu in relation to the scope of the independent annual review. The effect of the two amendments tabled in my name is to extend the scope of the independent annual review of the Act so that the review covers the whole Act, rather than just sections 1 to 6 on operation of control orders, as now.
	Under these amendments, the appeal provisions will come within the scope of the review, as will the arrangements for reviewing the Act once passed. I think this proposal goes towards dealing with some concerns that have been expressed on both sides of the House and also by my noble Friend Baroness Hayman in the other place, about the way in which these issues are to be considered when the legislation is taken forward.
	As I said yesterday, the Bill already provides a number of provisions for substantial and considered review of this system of legislation. They are, first, the quarterly reports that I, as Secretary of State, make to Parliament on the use of the powers to make control orders and, secondly, an independent reviewernow, I suggest, of the whole operation of the Actmaking an annual report, which is laid before Parliament. I confirm what I have said before: I will ask the independent reviewer to look specifically at the continuing need for the provisions in this Bill in the light of any new counter-terrorist legislation.
	I proposeI emphasise this new proposition nowto widen the remit to the whole Act, not simply the control order powers and the offence provisions.
	My proposal of last night was for the annual renewal of the Act with a vote in both Houses of Parliament to look at that situation. The proposal in the Bill enables the House to vote annually on the need to continue the capacity to make derogating control orders, if at some future stage we decide to derogate. I gave a commitment to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Soley) yesterday to have discussion across all parties after the election about the best way of taking this legislation forward. Of course, the opportunity for new legislation in the next Session gives us another opportunity to review these provisions.
	I can confirmagain responding to Baroness Haymanthat we will both ensure that the proposed legislation has proper pre-legislative scrutiny and will be introduced as early as possible in the next Session.
	I believe it is important, coming back to the attitude of the Conservative party, that the hon. Member for Beaconsfield state whether in any post-election discussion of the type that we have discussed in the House the Conservatives will accept control orders as a means of giving the security services the powers they need to deal with these threats. I also think that it is incumbent on him, on behalf of the official Opposition, to confirm that his election manifesto will include the pledge to repeal control orders, if that is indeed his position. The House deserves an answer to that question.
	On the basis of these proposals, we do not feel that we need a further Privy Council review or an additional review committee, and it is a total nonsense to remove the annual review of the Act. To be quite frank, the amendment passed in the other place is an offence against the excellent current reviewer, Lord Carlile of Berriew, and the work he is doing in carrying that through. To suggest he is not doing good work in this matter was a serious mistake by the Lords, in my opinion. I am determined that we insist on our disagreement with the amendments so as to maintain the existence of the independent reviewer. [Interruption.] I suggest that colleagues look at what he said in the debate in the House of Lords. He did not agree with himself being abolished in the way suggested by this particular proposalnot surprisingly, because he has done a pretty good independent, non-politically partisan job, which we should all pay respect and tribute to. That is why I am determined that we insist on our disagreement with the Lords amendments and thus maintain the existence of the independent reviewer.
	I hope that the House will insist on its disagreement to Lords amendments Nos. 27, 31 and 32 and that it will accept the Government amendments in lieu. I also hope that the House will disagree with Lords amendment No. 33D and agree to amendments Nos. 33A to 33C.
	When the hon. Member for Beaconsfield responds, I hope that he will set out what leads him to believe that a magic solution will be found by the end of March next year that will allow agreement to be reached on all these things. Even more, I hope that we will hear whether he accepts that his proposal to end control orders in Novemberor even at the end of March 2006would encourage terrorists to locate in Britain because I believe that that would be the effect of his actions. That is why I commend both our amendments and the statement of the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis to the House and hope that hon. Members will support our amendments this evening.

Dominic Grieve: Indeed. Government Members yesterday suggested that the need for security was so great that any infringement of liberty might be tolerated. We disagree profoundly with the Government on that point.
	The situation regarding the sunset clause is quite clear. The Government know from the comments of many of their Back Benchers, including those whom they persuaded to support them yesterday, that the Bill is without doubt a major infringement of civil liberties and is poorly drafted. The hon. and learned Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) made that comment, even though, in her loyalty, she came back to support the Government. The Home Secretary should therefore accept that the legislation should have a finite limit. Without such a limit, I have no confidence that the Government will ever review the measure properly. We will simply be asked to rubber-stamp its renewal, and there will not be any creative thinking about how we resolve our present dilemma and maintain civil liberties while fighting terrorism adequately.

Huw Irranca-Davies: Once again, the Opposition have made much of the opinions of people who have formerly held eminent positions. Does he accept that his proposals fly in face of the contemporary opinions of the security services and the police? If his measures are accepted, they will fly in the face of that advice and jeopardise the citizens of the United Kingdom.

Huw Irranca-Davies: The hon. Gentleman is generous in giving way again. To pursue his point about the security services and the police, they are asking for control orders. What is the Opposition's policy on control orders? If they do not have any intention of using them, will they include such a statement in their manifesto?

Frank Field: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that if the Government accepted the sunset clause, the official Opposition would drop all their objections to the remaining measures, knowing that we would be able to return to the drawing board after the election?

Dominic Grieve: The hon. and learned Lady is na-ve if she thinks that in the absence of a sunset clause we will get any joy from this Government for a proper review of this legislation with its draconian clauses and consequences.
	I have here the comments made by the hon. and learned Lady on 28 February and they could not be more crystal clear in their condemnation of a review system as opposed to one where the judge makes the initial decision. I invite her to read her words.

Alan Beith: As someone who was, in the words of the hon. and learned Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) given the opportunity to contribute to legislation in the Newton committee, I remind the House that the only sunset depended on the committee's report being debated. When the all-party committee produced a set of alternative proposals, the Home Office did not have to consider adopting them because the legislation continued. Only the sunsetting of the legislation by the House of Lords led to the Government taking up the committee's proposals.

Vera Baird: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
	The hon. and learned Gentleman knows well that if a judge is asked at the outset to consider whether there are reasonable grounds on which one can, as Home Secretary, suspect that a person is engaged in terrorism, the only possible way to reach a judgment is for the judge to look at the evidence and form a view. The hon. and learned Gentleman must not mislead the House about that.

Robert Marshall-Andrews: I am not sure that I shall accept that invitation, generous though it was. I make no apologies for being a lawyer. There are charlatans in my profession, as there are in every profession. Equally, we can number in my profession some of the finest politicians, alive and dead. They have made their contribution in their time, and it has often been in the field of civil libertyprecisely the subject that we are discussing. It is in that spirit that I make this intervention.
	I do not wish the House to be misled into passing legislation and believing that it is giving to judges a power that the Bill manifestly and obviously does not give to them, will never give to them and should not give to them, under judicial review, because to extend judicial review is, by definition, to diminish the power of the House and its Ministers. That is why judicial review exists, and why it is so heavily circumscribed. To suggest that we are giving judges the power to strike down Ministers by judicial review isI am sorrycasuistry, and should be treated as such.

Robert Marshall-Andrews: So my hon. and learned Friend has said. Of course we are talking about law. The Bill makes law. It is impossible to avoid that. It is making immensely bad law, and that is why we must talk about it. I have said what I said, and shot my bolt on the issue, and I hope that some hon. Members, at least, will take on board what I say in the spirit in which I am saying it.
	I come to the sunset clause; the time has now been extended to a year. What we are giving birth to here, if we give birth to it at all, is a very malformed animal indeed. In saying that, I enjoy the support not only of people who have fought the Bill throughout, but of people like my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) and many commentators who believe that the Bill is seriously malformed. The Bill cannot be resuscitated and cured, by definition. What we need is a rebirth. We need a new Bill and we need it quickly. The period of a year, which has been proposed in another place by a noble Lord of my party, is worthy of support. One year is enough. We need to bring back in a year not this old malformed Bill, resurfaced and rehatched, but a new Bill to deal with the problems of terrorism, which are undoubtedly real.

David Heath: It is a great misfortune that again we have such an abbreviated debate on this important Bill.
	I should like to think that the Home Secretary and others in the Chamber recognise the high level of agreement between parties, between Benches and between Houses. We all agree that there is a serious threat of terrorism. We all agree that there is a need to take appropriate measures to combat it. Most of us agree that, regrettably, control orders are probably part of the apparatus that is required. We have been prepared to accept that there needs to be an emergency process that enables the Secretary of State to apply for those control orders, even on the grounds of reasonable suspicion. Those in another place who have considered the Bill have done an extremely good job of tabling amendments that work and make the Bill better.
	The Home Secretary should not have any doubts about whether he will have his Bill, because he has it already. The Bill is workable, and it is for him to take it. It is not good enough to suggest that either a recalcitrant upper House or an obstructive Opposition in this Chamber is stopping him having what he needs in order to combat terrorism effectively.
	Which extraordinary suggestions from the other place does the Home Secretary propose to remove this evening? He proposes to remove the power of the Lord Chief Justice, rather than the Lord Chancellor, to make rules of court. A few weeks ago, we considered the abolition of the post of Lord Chancellor, and it is absurd to suggest that as a matter of principle the Lord Chancellor must make rules of court rather than the Lord Chief Justice.
	The Home Secretary has asked us to reject the contention that article 6 of the European convention on human rights should be addressed on the face of the Bill. That is ridiculous, but he insists that he will not budge. He could help the House this evening by making it explicit that the process will not accept evidence gained by torture under other jurisdictions, but he has not made that expressly plain.

Kenneth Clarke: I spoke about judicial review yesterday and I agree with the speech that the hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) made earlier and with the speech that the hon. and learned Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) made on the same subject previously. Anyone who believes that a case has been made in which the merits of the issue are put in the hands of the judge has been misled.
	With respect, I do not agree with the hon. and learned Member for Redcar that the difference between reasonable suspicion and the balance of probabilities is purely academic. No other part of the law is treated in that way. There will be cases in which there are plenty of grounds of suspicion but one feels that the man is probably innocent. If the Bill is allowed to proceed, someone in that position will be subject to all its rigours.
	Let me consider briefly the advice of the Security Servicethe new point on which the Home Secretary placed particular stress. Surely he could share a little more of the Security Service advice on the burden of proof and on the sunset clause. The only argument that I have heard advanced about the burden of proof is that the Security Service insists on it. I find that unlikely. If that is Security Service advice, it must have peculiar lawyers. I am sure that we shall revert to the point later and I should like the Home Secretary to let us know whether the Security Service says that we should have a balance of probabilities, not reasonable suspicion.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Mr. Deputy Speaker then proceeded to put the remaining Questions required to be put at that hour.
	Lords Amendments: 27B, 31B and 32B
	Motion made, and Question put,
	That this House insists on its disagreement to Lords Amendments 27, 31 and 32 but proposes the following amendments in lieu: (a), in page 12, line 45, leave out sections 1 to 6 and insert this Act.
	(b), in page 13, line 3, leave out those sections and insert this Act.[Ms Blears.]
	The House proceeded to a Division.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Lords Amendments Nos. 27B, 31B and 32B disagreed to.
	Amendments in lieu agreed to.
	Lords amendment: No.33D
	Motion made, and Question put,
	That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment and proposes amendments 33A to 33C in lieu.[Ms Blears.]
	The House divided: Ayes 324, Noes 217.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Lords amendment 33D disagreed to.
	Amendments 33A to 33C agreed to.
	Lords Reasons: 38A, 39A, 40A, 42D and 42E.
	Motion made, and Question put,
	That this House insists on its disagreement to Lords Nos. 38, 39 and 40, insists on its Nos. 42A and 42B, does not insist on its No. 42C, agrees to Lords No. 42D and disagrees with Lords No. 42E.[Ms Blears.]
	The House divided: Ayes 323, Noes 219.

Hazel Blears: Even at this early hour of the morning, I am attempting to be moderate and measured, and I hope that the debate will be conducted in that fashion. As we have made clear on several previous occasions, we have accepted the balance of probabilities for derogating orders because deprivation of liberty is a severe sanction. However, we do not accept it for non-derogating orders because there is a distinction between restrictions on liberty and deprivation of liberty. That is a clear position.
	The orders, as well as being preventive, not punitive, are about anticipating and disrupting terrorism. They are an assessment of risk, and I genuinely believe that hon. Members are trying to constrain a preventive framework in a traditional criminal justice system, which is about proof of events after the fact, evidence and an adversarial mechanism. I believe that hon. Members have not taken seriously the fact that we are trying to anticipate and prevent rather than simply prove things after the event, which happens in the traditional criminal legal justice system.

CORRECTION

9 March 2005: in column 1644, Division No. 126, after Allen, Graham insert Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E).

Dominic Grieve: The alleged terrorists are going to be walking the streets tomorrow morning, irrespective of whether this legislation is passed or not and that is a measure of the Government's failure to address this issue over the last 12 months.
	It is a straightforward issue. If the Government believed that civil liberties were important in this country they would consent to a sunset clause, if only to come back in 12 months' time and explain why, reluctantly, they had to continue with these measures. The fact that they will not taints the entire way in which the Government have approached this matter. I am left with the unpleasant sensation that the Government[Interruption.] It is unpleasant, because I would much rather have had the Government persuade me of the necessity of these measures. I am left with the unpleasant sensation that the Government have been playing the cheapest form of politics with this matter, and we on this side of the House will vote to uphold the Lords amendments.

Oliver Heald: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As page 74 of Erskine May makes clear,
	it is of paramount importance that ministers give accurate and truthful information to Parliament, correcting any inadvertent error at the earliest opportunity.
	In the light of what has occurred, when the Prime Minister gave a clear account that the security service had said that it was against the sunset clause, yet we now know from the Minister that that is not the case, clearly the Prime Minister must come here and apologise to the House. He must correct the information[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman's remark helped the situation. Let us get back to the central issue of the debate. I say to the House, let every hon. and right hon. Member be heard properly.

Michael Howard: The Prime Minister said:
	I am afraid that we are not prepared to accept either the amendment on the sunset clause or the other amendment voted for by the House of Lords, and which the Conservatives in the House of Lords backed, to change the burden of proof.
	He said either and or. He continued:
	That would not be wise; it would be contrary to the strong advice given to us by our security services and our police, and I am simply not prepared to do it.[Official Report, 9 March 2005; Vol. 431; c. 1510.]
	That was clearly referring to both the amendments.
	There is another quotation[Interruption.]

Michael Howard: I have to lay the foundations for it. There is another quotation from Hansard. At column 1511, the Prime Minister said:
	We have made concessions that we think are reasonable; we will not make those that are against the direct advice that we are receiving.[Official Report, 9 March 2005; Vol. 431, c. 1511.]
	The Prime Minister is in the precinctshe voted in the previous Division. Is there any precedent for a Prime Minister who is present in the precincts of this Palace, and against whom such accusations have been made, to fail to have the courage to come to the Dispatch Box[Interruption.]

Charles Kennedy: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Given your ruling of a moment ago and the definite ambiguity, to say the least, that exists, would be it be in order for you to request that the Prime Minister or the Government place the available evidence in the Library, so that an objective judgment can be formed since, clearly, the Prime Minister is not coming to the House to explain?

Hazel Blears: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
	I simply want to make it clear that when the Prime Minister was responding to the issue about the sunset clause, he said:
	I do not agree with the sunset clause, for this simple
	[Interruption.]

Dominic Grieve: I am sorry that the night has not brought the Home Secretary good counsel. I rather hoped that when we reassembled this morning a greater degree of clarity and common sense would prevail. Instead, we have had a repetition of the same old mantras. The Home Secretary said that he is making a major concession, but it appears that that means giving a copy of the order to the person concerned. He knows that the distinction that he continues to try to make between derogating and non-derogating orders is wrong and absurd. The logical conclusion of his argument is that derogating orders are valueless, as was explained by the Minister for Crime Reduction, Policing and Community Safety last night. There is no reason why non-derogating orders should not be subject to the same protection as derogating orders. Having had his moment of clarity, it is extraordinary that the Home Secretary is still unable and unwilling to give a logical explanation of why he will not concede that point, which we believe is of great importance.
	The liberty of the individual must be protected, miscarriages of justice must be prevented, and if this anti-terrorism legislation is to work and command public approval in all communities in this country it must be seen to be transparently fair. It is extraordinary that the Home Secretary is prepared to tolerate a system in which there is inherent and manifest unfairness. The explanations that he has offered to justify it are frankly gobbledygook. We are told that there is a major concession on Privy Council reviewthere is not. The extent of the urgent procedure may be looked at by the independent reviewer, but there has not been any attempt by the Home Secretary to engage with the value and merits of a full Privy Council review.
	Finally, there is the issue of the sunset clause. The Home Secretary does not seem to have grasped the significance of the sunset clause to Parliament as a whole. This legislation is unusual and draconian, and it would be wrong to put something on the statute book that has the capacity to become permanent. There is no reason why the sunset clause should not be included in the Bill, and the mechanisms that the Home Secretary is giving himself to renew the legislation by order are fundamentally flawed and wrong. If the Home Secretary thinks that there will be movement in the other place on that point, he is profoundly mistaken, because it is of such importance.

Tom Harris: There is an important point of principle here, as the hon. Gentleman rightly says. This elected House of Commons has repeatedly, over the past day and over the past week, made its position clear on some very fundamental points, and the unelected Chamber has, on similar terms, made its point of view very clear. Can the hon. Gentleman confirm that it is his position and that of the Conservative party that where the elected House of Commons and the unelected House of Lords disagree, the view of the Commons should prevail?

David Heath: We are engaging[Hon. Members: Answer.] I am answering the question. We are engaged in a process of dialogue that I hope will result in justice for the people of this country. The honest answer is that, ultimately, the House of Commons must of course be the prime House. I have no quarrel about that, and nor would any of my noble Friends at the other end of the Corridor. I return to what they are saying: it is not that the House must not have the anti-terrorism proposals that the Home Secretary has put forwardbut there is a perfectly proper argument that reasonable suspicion is too low a test. We heard the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), in an earlier speech, saying that we do not even accept that for a parking ticket for British citizens, and yet we are prepared to accept it for a deprivation of liberty. I take that seriously, and I hope that Members on the other side of the Chamber take it seriously. They would have done so in previous years and previous debates, so I hope that they still do.
	The second component is that the prosecution should be conducted by the Director of Public Prosecutions. The Home Secretary has acknowledged that principle. He has chosen, for reasons that are not entirely clear, to say that he wishes to consult the chief of police rather than the person who is charged with making a prosecutionthe Director of Public Prosecutions. I do not understand that. I do not understand where the matter of principle is involved in that. I would have thought that it is all a matter of proper dialogue and negotiation.
	The third point relates to the common procedure for these orders. Again, we have heard cogent speeches from well-respected Government Members saying that there should be exactly that, so let us not pretend that there is a matter of principle between the two sides of the House on that point.

Chris Bryant: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He has been making the point that all control orders should be treated precisely the same, which is a point to which their lordships are still holding. Does not he accept that many in the House believe that it is wholly different to impose a control order that deprives someone of their liberty by putting them under house arrest and to impose one that merely says that somebody is not allowed to work in a nuclear establishment or that they will have their passport removed?

David Heath: Not now. Others want to speak.
	Two matters of process are before the House, and one matter of principle. The matter of principle is what I have just been talking about, and on that I still believe that we can reach an accommodation. The two matters of process are the Privy Council review of the legislationwhich I think is a sensible outcome and one to be desired, particularly given the Government's new amendment to provide the independent reviewerand the sunset clause.
	The sunset clause is a matter of practicality: it is a protection against the continuation of what is, in anyone's book, a hastily constructed and dangerously draconian measure. It is an emergency measure, which has not been properly considered by the House of Commons or anyone outside it. I believe that it is sensible to provide a sunset clause enabling the new Parliament, however it may be formed, to discuss the legislation, with an appropriate amount of time.
	If the Secretary of State wants to return to us with a different date for the sunset clause, we shall listen to what he has to say. As I pointed out yesterday, he has already provided for a proto-sunset clause in his amendments. There is a pretence that there is a huge difference between the two Housesan impassebut it is an impasse in the mind of the Prime Minister. It is the Prime Minister who cannot countenance the fact that we could reach an accommodation.
	I return to the point with which I started. These matters are too serious for us to engage in knockabout across the Chamber, which I think does nothing for the reputation of the House. It is time we sat round the table and arrived at a consensus so that we can get these measures on the statute book. Why? Because it is the anniversary of a major atrocity in a European city and because we have been told that there are dangerous terrorists who need to be locked up for the protection of our citizens, but are now walking freely the streets of Britain. Those are the reasons why we need the legislation to go through in a form acceptable to this and the other House. It is time we sat down and ensured that that happens.

William Cash: The plain fact is that the Bill is fundamentally flawed on all the principles on which it is being proposed. It does not secure the nation. It is liable to create further trouble and dissention among those whom we are seeking to controlthe terrorists. It denies the liberty of the subjecthabeas corpusbut the Home Secretary refuses to accept that, although he originally said that it would contain habeas corpus, and he would not give way to meas you noticed, Mr. Deputy Speakerbecause he knew that I would raise that point. All that he could do was come up with a cheap jibe.
	The plain fact is that the Home Secretary knows that the Bill must be subjected to a sunset clause, but I ask the House to consider the central problem with the Bill: it is dependent on the application of the European convention on human rights. [Hon. Members: Hurray!] Hon. Members opposite may have their moment, but the reason why the Bill cannot work is that there is an internal tension, which the Home Secretary knows, between complying with the European convention on human rights on the one hand and trying to ensure the security of the nation on the other.

Prevention of Terrorism Bill

Lords reasons further considered.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Let me answer. We are now on timetabled business. We are therefore considering the business before us. Many Members of the House, Government and Opposition, have discussed the matter outside the House, and I will not stop anyone doing so. I have an hour's business before me and I am applying the rules of the House. That is what I will do. If someone tables an urgent question on Monday, I will consider these matters, but let us get on with the business in hand.

Oliver Heald: The information given on the television what that the interview was at Downing street at 3.30

Charles Clarke: There are, as the hon. Gentleman says, examples of other legislation, of different types, which have sunset clausesthat is true. In each case, the argument needs to be taken on its merits. On this Bill, when I consider the merits of the case for such a clause, I come to the conclusion that the risk is not right. There is a more fundamental reason for my position, which I have stated before and will state again.

Charles Clarke: I can give that assurance, and for this reason: it was from these Benches that we proposed the amendment to the role of the independent reviewer to shift the responsibility of the independent reviewer from simply looking at the operation of the control orders to looking at the operation of the whole of the Act. That is why the language I used a moment ago made it clear that the responsibility of the independent reviewer in looking at the whole of the operation of the Act was to make a report on all the matters concerned in order to inform the legislation that he proposes.

Charles Clarke: I am delighted that the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), whom we should all like to see back at the head of the leadership of his party, is committing that party to introducing legislation of this type. To be entirely candid, I know that he is sincere in his support

Charles Clarke: I know that the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe is committed to the control order regime that we are describing, and that he has simply had a number of objections to the way in which we have done things.

Charles Clarke: He acknowledges that now. That is not true of those on the Front Bench of his party, and I am delighted by the right hon. and learned Gentleman's commitment.

Charles Clarke: I make the statement I am making today

Charles Clarke: I make my statement in a constructive spirit, but I have to sayI want to make this absolutely clearthat if it is rejected by the Opposition parties, I shall have no hesitation whatsoever in recommending to my colleagues in this House that they continue to press for as long as it takes to put the Bill on to the statute book.
	I commend our proposals to the House.

Charles Clarke: I do not think I was very rude. I simply thought that the peer made a very poor speech on behalf of the Liberal Democrats in the other place.

Dominic Grieve: The trouble is, the Home Secretary spoke to the wrong person.
	That, I have to say, is, as far as I am aware, the full extent of the Home Secretary's approach to Opposition parties. Certainly, it is so in so far as my own party is concerned. I take this opportunity, therefore, seeing that the Home Secretary has never engaged in the sort of discussions that[Interruption.]

Dominic Grieve: If I start to speak very slowly and clearly, perhaps the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) will understand me.
	I suggest to the Home Secretary that the standard of proof of the balance of probabilities is a much better one. I urge him, again, to reconsider that.
	Let me turn to the sunset clause. I hope that Members and the Home Secretary had an opportunity to hear the debate in the other place that preceded this one. If they did, they would have heard Lord Morris of Aberavon explain that in legislation of this type, which gives the Government unusual powers, it is completely acceptable, and, indeed, good practice, that there should be some form of sunset clause. He acknowledged that the period ought to be open to negotiation, and he suggested that the Government should suggest what that period should be.

Mr. Speaker: It seems that Ministers want to shout today. I tell the Minister for the Cabinet Office, Do not shout. If the hon. Gentleman is put out of the Chamber, he may not be able to vote.

Mark Fisher: As someone who has, regrettably, felt it necessary to vote with the hon. Gentleman against the Government consistently on the matter of a sunset clause, does the hon. Gentleman share my view, having listened to the timetable that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has set out, that we have a sunset clause that would smell as sweet and sound as sweet by any other name? If we cannot see what is beneath our nose, I think that my right hon. Friend deserves the thanks of the House for an intelligent, flexible and witty solution, and we would do well to accept it.

David Heath: That is clearly an obstacle because of the barriers that have been put around it by the Prime Minister and others as a matter for dispute between the political parties.
	The Home Secretary has put forward various proposals that enable the House to reconsider the Bill. We acknowledge that, but there is one last problem, which was quite unavoidable. That problem is the fact that Parliament would not be in a position to amend the legislation on renewal. Renewal orders are not amendable. As we have said repeatedly, the problem with that is that this House and another would be given the options of accepting renewal or rejecting it, and nothing else. It is not difficult to understand that. in the circumstances of a terrorist threat, only acceptance of renewal would be a proper course of action for responsible parliamentarians; therefore, the House would not have the option of making good what we believe to be inadequate legislation.
	Those of good will in another place, in whose number we include Lord Morris of Aberavon, who spoke extremely well, Lord King of Bridgwater, who made an outstanding speech, and my noble Friend Lord Steel of Aikwood

David Heath: I am most grateful to the Home Secretary and I take him up on his offer. We must now talk sensibly about how we can bring our proceedings to a satisfactory close. We shall not change our attitude toward the matter of principlethe balance of probabilities. He knows and I know that we differ on that point. However, on the point of process, if we can arrive at a solution that is satisfactory to this House and to the other place, so be itwe will have achieved substantial progress.
	My final point is simply that, had we had a timetable for such legislation three years ago, we might not be in the lamentable position that we are in today. We might not have to consider legislation of such importance against the backdrop of an apparent emergencyan emergency that is, in fact, of the Government's own making. It is the Government's failure to take seriously the process of review, the Newton committee's proposals and the views of all those outside the House who said that we needed better, more appropriate anti-terrorism legislation that has brought us to where we are today. Given that we are here, let us see whether we can make progress.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Mr. Speaker then proceeded to put the remaining Question required to be put at that hour.
	Lords amendment: No. 33
	Motion made, and Question put, That this House insists on its disagreement with Lords Amendment 33D and insists on its Amendments 33C, 33G and 33J in lieu, does not insist on its Amendment 331 and proposes Amendment (a) in lieu.[Ms Blears.]
	The House divided: Ayes 325, Noes 196.

Peter Hain: Further to that point of order. On behalf of the whole House, I make exactly the same points. I particularly thank the catering staff, who have had to respond at very late notice and have done absolutely magnificently on behalf of us all in the process, and have had little sleep in so doing.

Mr. Speaker: I have to inform the House that a message has been brought from the Lords as follows. The Lords do not insist on their amendment to the Prevention of Terrorism Bill to which the Commons has disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their amendment in lieu thereof. They do not insist on an amendment in lieu of certain other Lords amendments to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree to the amendments proposed by the Commons in lieu thereof. They agree the amendments proposed by the Commons to the words so restored to the Bill.

Edward Leigh: It has been a long wait. As we have just heard, this has been the third longest sitting since records began and although to the rest of the world it is Friday evening, to us it is still Thursday. However, for me the 30-hour wait has been worth it, because the subject of the debate is important to my constituency.
	The debate is about the sad death of my constituent, Heather Bell, a rider who was thrown from her horse after it had bolted from a low-flying RAF Chinook. That resulted in a number of recommendations to help reduce the chances of such accidents occurring in future: first came the recommendations of the coroner, and then the petition from my constituents.
	I recognise that the Minister has taken a step in the right directionI give him credit where credit is duein response to the coroner's call for
	better communication with the public,
	and has set up a hotline. However, the information provided by the low-flying hotline is valid only at the time of calling. The caller must either
	keeping calling back
	for
	updates or . . . take a chance.
	That means taking a chance on death or serious injury to horse and rider. In the wake of the several deaths already caused by the problemI should emphasise that the matter does not just concern my constituency and the tragedy that occurred there; there have been serious injuries elsewherethat is scarcely reassuring.
	The hotline adviser told someone from my office who called to inquire about the service that
	if you were out for a couple of hours, we could say 'No, there's nothing'and then near the end of the ride
	a low-flying aircraft
	comes along.
	Given that the information is therefore limited not only to one specific day but to one very brief time slot and subject to change within a half hour or less, it appears that the value of the hotline is not much above the cosmetic.
	The same adviser took pains to stress that all times were just advisory, and that the best time to ring was just before going out. When asked what flights would be taking place between 4 pm and 5.30 pm in the central Market Rasen area in Lincolnshire, the adviser stated that there would be one large rotary during that period. The area covered stretches across Boston, Scarborough and Wakefieldsome hundreds of square miles. The information is therefore completely useless to anybody who wants an idea of whether a Chinook is to thunder down on them as they are riding a horse, perhaps causing it to bolt. Low-flying area 11 covers Humberside, North Lincolnshire, north-east Nottinghamshire and north-east Yorkshire4,618 square miles.
	The adviser could give no information whatever about the following day, and, as the MOD's press release announcing its launch last month pointed out, it is a helicopter hotline only. It tells people nothing about fast jets as they thunder across the countryside. If someone is planning to ride anywhere near a base or a helicopter training school,
	it will not be able to provide information on . . . activity around
	such locations
	due to the consistently high level of activity in these areas.
	Furthermore, the hotline operates only between 8 am and 5 pm. When I rang the hotline, I was told that it was too late and to ring back tomorrow. Could the availability of the hotline be extended, particularly as at times a busy person might not be able to get through?
	As the Minister is aware, I have called for the Ministry of Defence to notify the public on a website of a strip of perhaps 10 square miles either way where training is proposed and when, but that has not been done. Yet, as I have said before, there is no convincing reasonin security or technology termswhy it should not be done. The coroner accepted, as of course I do, that
	on occasions security issues may prevent publication of proposed sorties.
	However, he went on to say that he suspected that that
	would not apply to the majority of training flights.
	I am sure that the Minister accepts that that is entirely reasonable.
	I do not question in any way the need for the RAF to conduct low-flying training; it is protecting national security. Nobody in Lincolnshire is a fanatic about the matter; we all recognise that Chinooks have to go out. We just want warning of where they will be on the training flights, which I would have thought are planned in advance. Co-ordinates must be laid out and the pilot must be given them. It is surely possible for the public to be told.
	It is true that the current MOD website gives a skeleton timetable and calendar for low flying in the three most intensive low-flying areas of the countrycentral Wales, north Scotland and the Scottish bordersbut that is no good either to my constituents or, for the first few days of this month, to people living in those three areas, as on 4 March the website was still showing the calendar for February, despite the claim that it had been updated on 1 March. If the information was merely about leisure activities or various public services, that would be regrettable, but it is about saving people's lives and there have already been deaths. Regrettably, there seems to be no great sense of urgency about that at the Ministry of Defence. Neither does it give one great confidence that any online service giving information about low flying in my constituency would be as helpful as one would hope.
	The MOD website is not easy to navigate, and people need to know that the information is available before they can find it. When it is at last discovered, buried in a paragraph, it is pretty vague; time slots of up to eight hours are given for several days in a row in northern Scotland and central Wales. Even washing machine repair men can usually say whether they will be coming in the morning or the afternoon, and that drives us all crazy. I urge the Minister in the strongest terms to ensure not only that the current website is made much more user-friendly, but that the current state of affairs will not be the model for any other online information.
	None the less, the question must be asked: why could not the MOD apply even the same skeleton plan, with all its deficiencies, to the area concerning my constituents? Currently, all that they can find out about their broad area from the MOD's website is the total number of hours flown in North Lincolnshire. That covers hundreds of square miles, and it included bordering areas the previous year. That might be useful to statisticians or students, but I do not see how it will save any lives.
	Gainsborough might not be in the top three areas for military low flying, but that did not prevent 23 complaints from being logged in Market Rasen before Heather Bell's death. In fact, according to figures released to the Lincolnshire Echo last month under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, the MOD received 332 complaints about low-flying aircraft across Lincolnshire in the three years between 2002 and 2004. As the Echo commented,
	That's the equivalent of one complaint every three days.
	The same report of 8 February recorded the fact that there had been another 45 complaints from residents in the Market Rasen area, including those in the villages of Glentham and Walesby, since the accident on 10 June 2003.
	Let me quote a few lines from the report:
	In Middle Rasen itself, two complaints about low-flying helicopters were logged on June 13th, three days later. Two days after the accident, on June 12th, 2003, a low-flying jet was reported over Middle Rasen. A low-flying jet was seen over the village four days later. One complainant contacted military officials to report a low-flying helicopter over Market Rasen on July 21st 2003just a month after the accident.
	Even worse, the report continues:
	A complaint about a low-flying helicopter over Middle Rasen was made in November 2004, even though the MOD has enforced a no-flying policy within a one-and-a-half mile radius of the village.
	The number of complaints is increasing. In 2002, there were 95 complaints; in 2003, there were 114; and in 2004 there were 123. Of the total 332 complaints, 262 were about low-flying fixed or non-rotary aircraft, mainly jets, while 56 concerned helicoptersand the MOD was unavailable for comment.
	Let us see what the Ministry does, apart from log events, when a person complains. According to the editor of the Market Rasen MailI presented a petition in response to his newspaper's campaign, which is why I have secured this debatethe complainant receives a visit from the RAF police, and the burden of proof is on the complainant, who has to answer technical questions about exact height and speed. Clearly, that does not encourage justified complaints any more than the current quality of the MOD website and hotline encourages use of those services.
	So what is to be done? In the three high-intensity areas, there are regional community relations officers, who, according to the website,
	act as the focal point for military low flying issues in their respective areas.
	Can we not extend the community relations officers? Can we not have them in other parts of the country?
	On the coroner's recommendations, I reiterate all the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), who raised this matter in an Adjournment debate last week, about reducing the area for low flying. I do not insist or ask that we should go back to the pre-1979 situation. I know the arguments about that and I have received a letter from the Minister dated 31 March, but surely there must be a way of avoiding smaller towns and villages. There are arguments about increased use of simulators, which I would have thought was possible, and about improved technology vis--vis tracking devices, which I know Air Commodore Garwood called a very, very good idea at the inquest. I echo my hon. Friend's support for the coroner's recommendations on avoidance notices, specifically in the Market Rasen area. I would have thought that it was perfectly possible for the RAF to avoid flying over stables, which are fixed buildings, so those involved know where they are.
	The coroner said that his task at the inquest
	would have been made very much easier if the cockpit voice recorder had been operational.
	He therefore recommended that in future such recorders should remain operational. He commented that as health and usage monitoring systemsHUMSwhich constantly monitor the condition of aircraft, like a constantly updated MOT, can record data for up to eight hours, they should be left on. That must be possible, as is the norm with civilian aircraft. The coroner suggested that more information should be coming out of the cockpit, and that is what we want. It could be useful in assisting the RAF police with investigations and to relieve complainants of the burden of attempting to supply the answers to technical questions about height and speed, which they cannot simply answer.
	The coroner's sixth recommendation was that, following the practice applied to fast jets, helicopters involved in low-flying training could be fitted with video equipment so that the whole sortie was recorded on videotape. I agree with his comment that
	if helicopter crews were aware that their flight was being videotaped then it would encourage strict compliance with Flying Regulations.
	It would also provide more useful and, importantly,
	immediately available
	evidence. There would then be no need for
	flight reconstruction.
	Does the Minister believe that that would be a worthwhile investment?
	The coroner's seventh recommendation in the event of future similar fatalitiesor, one might add, accidentswas that
	clear procedures need to be established to immediately secure available evidence.
	He specified that
	all flight crew should immediately be the subject of alcohol and drug testing,
	that the impounding of the helicopter should be considered
	at a high level,
	that no further sorties should be undertaken following such an incident, that the downloading of information should be given the highest priority, should be done by
	a member of the RAF who has considerable experience in such matters,
	and should take place in the presence of a RAF police officer. The downloaded data should be stored in
	a tamper-proof bag which should be properly labelled
	and
	immediately be placed in a secure place and kept under lock and key with limited access.
	I ask the Minister to note the coroner's comment that Sergeant Newton of the RAF police, who investigated the case,
	was not aware that Chinook helicopters had HUMS equipment fitted,
	and that
	he had received no training about which aircraft had such equipment and relied upon picking up such information by word of mouth.
	Another suggestion from the coroner was that inquiries should be made to ascertain whether it would be technically possible for the loadmaster, who sits at the left rear of the aircraft, to
	receive the same audible information as the remainder of the crew.
	Finally, I draw the Minister's attention to the coroner's statement that these recommendations
	need to be considered in their totality.
	The Minister is aware of the petition launched by the Market Rasen Mail, which I fully support. It endorses the coroner's call for a return to a restricted zone for low-flying training and greater use of simulators. It calls for the lower limit to be raised above 50 ft and for devices to alert people to aircraft in the area, and recommends a recorded message briefing of daily flight plans.
	With the navigation system used in helicopters and sophisticated altometers, it should be possible to know where a helicopter is and at what height at a particular time, so that complaints can be monitored. I hope the Minister will accept that there is no more time left for words of comfort. He must translate those words into action, so that my constituents may feel that some good has come from the tragic death of Heather Bell. He must take action. The MOD has a reputation for being slow-moving in this and other matterswitness the debate over the veterans of the Arctic convoy this week. This is an opportunity for the Minister, in his final weeks in the MOD, to make a name for himself and once and for all resolve the issue of low-flying aircraft and helicopters.

Ivor Caplin: I join the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) in welcoming the fact that we eventually got to the Adjournment debate after 32 hours. It is a particular pleasure on a Friday evening to be speaking on Thursday evening. That is certainly a first.
	I thank the hon. Gentleman for his constructive approach to the debate and for the points that he raised in relation to a particularly tragic accident. One cannot begin to imagine the sense of grief and loss suffered over the past 16 months since that tragic accident, and our condolences are extended to Mr. Bell and his family.
	We must not forget that Alexandra Nixon and Melanie Dodds also lost their lives in similar tragic circumstances, and I extend our condolences to their families, as I did last Friday. I readily understand the strength of feeling shown by the hon. Gentleman's constituents, which has been expressed through him as the constituency Member, and in the petition organised by the Market Rasen Mail. The letter to which he referred summarised, I hope, the action that we have taken so far.
	The circumstances surrounding Mrs. Bell's death have been sufficiently aired, and I agree that we must learn lessons from this terrible accident. The Louth and Spilsby district coroner conducted an extremely comprehensive inquest into the death, and the Ministry of Defence provided our fullest co-operation, but before I turn to the coroner's recommendations in detailas I said I would last Fridaylet me address the individual points that the hon. Gentleman raised.
	I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman welcomes the provision of a telephone advisory service as a first step to improving communication. However, he made a number of criticisms, which deserve some comment. He pointed out that the information is valid only at the time of the call and does not provide a forecast of forthcoming activity. That is simply because low-level bookings by military aircrew can be made only on the day when they need to undertake such trainingthey cannot pre-book training in the UK low-flying system. This approach is born out of the experience that weather, equipment availability and other factors can make earlier booking meaningless, and lead to the public's being given misleading information. The only exception is when we anticipate low-flying activity connected with a specific exercise that needs to be pre-plannedbut even that has to be booked on the day when such activity takes place. Moreover, given the short-notice changes that can be made to planned low-flying training as a result of a number of factorsthat can include additions as well as cancellationsit would be irresponsible for the system's operators to say anything other than that the information is valid only at the time of the call.
	The hon. Gentleman expressed disappointment at the fact that the telephone service does not include information on low-flying fast jets or on activity close to our main helicopter-operating bases and training schools. As I said last Friday, we intend to keep all these issues under review, and I hope that the House will regard that as reasonable, given that the phone line has been in operation for just 11 days.
	It is a fact that a high level of helicopter activity is expected near our main helicopter bases and training schools, which are known as dedicated user areas. We are, of course, extremely grateful to the public for their tolerance in these areas, but it is not practical to provide information about the number of helicopter movements there. However, the bases in question all have points of contact for the public, should they have any particular issues to discuss.
	We have never sought to mislead anyone about the service offered. We have made it clear that at present we are unable to provide anything other than a broad indication of planned low-flying helicopter activity. The information that we are providing has not previously been available to the public, and it does indicate the expected level of low-flying helicopter activity.
	I now want briefly to respond to some of the hon. Gentleman's other points. The information available on our website on low-flying activity is not buried, as he suggested. Indeed, a simple search for low flying on the internet provides a prompt and direct link to the MOD website; in fact, it is the first search result. Nor do I accept his view that navigating the website is an issue. For example, details on the new telephone service feature on our home page, with a link leading straight to the relevant low-flying information pages. I was also a little puzzled by his saying that information on the tactical training areas was out of date. As he said, that information was updated on 1 March, but it should be noted that it related to both February and March. Indeed, it has always been our practice to make available information on both the preceding month and the month ahead.
	The hon. Gentleman is right to say that 23 complaints were logged in the Middle Rasen area in the 18 months before Mrs Bell's death, but that should be seen against the background of the near presence of four major RAF flying stations. He is correct in saying that the number of complaints across the county has risen, but of course that might reflect an increased awareness of such activity.
	It is, regrettably, true that, on occasion, avoidance areas are intruded into by military aircraft. The hon. Gentleman made reference to a number of specific complaints. All such incidents are subject to full investigation by the defence flying complaints investigation team. However, I am surprised that his constituents find those investigations intimidating. The feedback that we receive is generally favourable. Complainants are pleased that their reports are being taken seriously. The investigators merely seek to clarify the reported facts as far as possible and only ask for estimates of height and speed.
	The hon. Gentleman referred to three high-intensity areas as having regional community relations officers. Those posts were established because of the amount of activity seen in areas where there is no RAF presence to give a natural point of contact. Given that there are two major flying establishments, each with their own community relations staff, within 15 miles of Market Rasen, that scarcely applies to Lincolnshire.
	I want now to deal with the nine recommendations made by the coroner. The first sought a reduction of the area in which low-flying helicopter training takes place in the United Kingdom. That is a complex issue that requires careful consideration, so we have established an MOD working group, composed of representatives of our rotary wing users, to consider very carefully the requirement for helicopter low-flying training. The low-flying system that we have in place today is not too far removed from that in operation before 1979, but to minimise disturbance we have moved away from fixed transit corridors to spread such training flights as equitably as possible across the remaining areas.
	The second recommendation was that we should increase the use of simulatorsanother point made by the hon. Gentleman and by his constituents in their petition. The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) also made the point last Fridayhe would be deeply disappointed if I did not mention it. I can assure the House that we use simulation as much as we can, and we are finding that the fidelity of the simulation offered to support our more recent equipment purchases is allowing us to make greater use of simulated flight.
	During the coroner's inquest, comparisons were made between the amount of time spent using simulation in training by civilian pilots and by military aircrew. I understand that one witness stated that over 90 per cent. of training in the civilian context takes place in simulation. Let me make this simple point: current operations such as those in Iraq and Afghanistan, as I said last week, have highlighted the requirement for military helicopters to fly at very low levels in hostile environments, sometimes operating in poor weather conditions, flying under pylon wires, and operating in the face of enemy fire. That, I think the House will accept, is a rather different requirement than that for a commercial pilot.
	Another point raised in the petition was the height of low-level helicopter training. By the nature of their operations, military helicopters need to fly as low to the ground as possible. In some cases they are authorised to fly as low as 50 ft or even down to ground level if required for specific training events. However, only the minimum amount of flights at these very low levels take place, for very obvious reasons. Raising the height of those training sorties quickly reduces the training value for the aircrew.
	The third recommendation was for us to improve our communication about our low-flying activities. We accept that that is a valid point, and we are looking at a range of measures to improve the flow of information to the public. I dealt with that in some detail earlier. The hon. Gentleman made a point about the opening hours of the phone line, and I can confirm that we intend to extend them to 8 pm during the summer months.
	The fourth recommendation asked us to consider the utility of improved technology to assist aircrew in locating horse riders. The working group is considering those aspects very carefully and will take into account the technical, cost and practical implications of the use of such devices.
	The fifth recommendation was to increase the duration of voice recording tape in our helicopters. Around a third of the helicopters in Joint Helicopter Command have the facility to record voice data. Those meet Civil Aviation Authority mandated standards for voice recording in line with civilian helicopter accident recorders. The aim of the standard is to provide a voice recording of any events leading up to an aircraft accident, rather than being a permanent record of the entire flight. The voice recorders serve to assist post-aircraft accident investigations as opposed to post-incident investigations.
	The sixth recommendation was to introduce video cameras into the cockpits. Given that helicopters can have sortie lengths of many hours' duration, the length of the video recording tape would become an issue, as would the endurance of the battery unit. To overcome that, there would be a requirement to hard wire the camera into the on-board system. That would present other technical issues, requiring Design Authority approval, which is both complex and expensive.
	During the inquest, criticisms were made about the way in which evidence was secured by the RAF police immediately after the tragic accident involving Mrs. Bell. As the hon. Gentleman pointed out, the coroner's seventh recommendation suggested a number of measures to tighten up our procedures and training of investigators. We accept that there were shortcomings and have since undertaken a complete review of evidence collection procedures, and enhanced training has been put in place. In addition, standardised processes have now been introduced in order to clarify precisely what action should be taken in the event of any serious incidents.
	In his eighth recommendation, the coroner suggested that the rear left loadmaster of the Chinook crew should receive the radar altitude warning. Currently, the handling pilot, non-handling pilot and rear right hand side crew member of a Chinook receive an audible warning if the aircraft is at risk of descending below its authorised height. We see no operational value in making that warning available to the rear left loadmaster of the Chinook crew. It is the responsibility of the flying crew to ensure that the aircraft maintains appropriate heights throughout a sortie, and we are satisfied that the addition of the warning for the right hand loadmaster is sufficient for those purposes.
	Finally, the coroner's ninth recommendation asked if we would give consideration to granting an avoidance for low-flying activity for the Market Rasen areaa point that the hon. Gentleman repeatedgiven that a considerable amount of equestrian activity takes place in the area. The House will wish to know that, as a mark of respect to the Bell family, we introduced an avoidance for military helicopters over Middle Rasen, and that that will remain in force for five years, after which it will be reviewed. That reflects, I know, the strength of feeling in the town, and I hope shows how seriously we take these matters.
	We have been quite open about the action we are taking in relation to the coroner's nine recommendations. We accept that there are lessons to be learned and we are serious about learning them. On completion of the consideration of the recommendations by the Ministry of Defence, which I expect to be concluded by the end of June, I intend to make a further announcement to the House, and I certainly expect that to be before the summer recess commences.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at eight minutes to Eight o'clock.